GC - a low-impact implementation of the 'flyer' archetype as a Capability

[TurielD (OP)]

It has frequently been opined that flying units are missing from Aurora ground combat, and that assigning space-based fighters to ground combat through FFD doesn't really scratch that itch.
The typical suggestion is that to remedy this, a 'flyer' unit type should be added alongside the existing vehicles.

I want to propose an alternative: Make 'aerospace' a capability similar to 'Boarding Combat'

This capability could be connected to any vehicle type and would do the following:

• Provide superior evasion; either a simple HitMod*0.1, or (Hitmod^2)*0.1 - flyers are fast/high and hard to hit; AA weapons should inherently ignore this modifier and revert to HitMod
• Reduce armor (and perhaps hitpoints) by a factor of 0.25 - the main problem with flying platforms is they need lift at the cost of armor, and these structures render them fragile.
• Increase GSP Resupply Cost by a factor of ~2.5  maybe depending on technology - Flyers eat fuel.
• They cannot benefit from Fortification - a flyer may sit in an underground hangar, but if it is then it's not fighting

This achieves 2.5 things:

• It continues Steve's design philosophy that labels are roleplay-agnostic.
  Use a Light Vehicle to imagine an ornithopter or an unmanned drone; Super-Heavy can be anything from steampunk attack-blimps to flying Gundams; whatever you can imagine.
• You (Steve) would barely need to mess around with unit types or weapon types!
  • Fit your 'aerospace heavy vehicle' with bombardment weapons if you want it to be a durable, RE-stationed bomber
  • Fit your 'aerospace light vehicle' with Light AA if you want a front-line interceptor designed to take on other flyers.
• As an extension of [2] you fix the 'AA Horizon' problem that all AA units on the planet can fire at any aircraft: AA units are now only engaging hostile forces that their formation is in combat with, and their combat doesn't need a separate mechanic

Of course flyers that are hard to hit could potentially bring a host of balancing issues, but that's eminently tweakable by (for instance) altering AA cost/effectiveness or flyer resource requirements.
The point is to add interesting options and expand our roleplaying potential at a manageable development cost!

[misanthropope]

you cant avoid having *any* unintended consequences, but you can avoid *many* of them by eschewing sweeping solutions to narrow problems.

[Gyrfalcon]

Thar’s a narrow-minded viewpoint- in that case, to avoid unintended consequences, why change anything ever?

I like the idea behind this because it’s something that can be implemented for the AI simply as well as the player.

I feel that currently there is no purpose to AA units or air support in general. Getting ground attack craft to a hostile world and assigned to FFD is an unbearable micromanagement slog with little benefit as artillery and FFD support has next to no effect in combat. The AI doesn’t support the mechanic at all, and to do so would require more coding effort than this proposal.

It also allows players to fluff thei aerial support as they wish - from drone swarms to helicopters to bombers or anti-grav assault ships.

[Vivalas]

Thar’s a narrow-minded viewpoint- in that case, to avoid unintended consequences, why change anything ever?

Eh, if we're gonna go off the cusp here already and call others narrow minded, I think this is the more narrow minded viewpoint.

Every action has a consequence, and a lot of times these can be unforeseen, which cannot be avoided. It's part of the friction of making decisions and managing risk.

The answer to your question is, "when the possible risk is outweighed by the possible benefits of an action".

Although, I'm not really sure what this is in reference to or how this relates to the suggestion.

[Garfunkel]

The numbers need crunching, of course, to make sure that there's a point in having other units as well as fliers but that's minor details. I really like this suggestion!

[TurielD (OP)]

you cant avoid having *any* unintended consequences, but you can avoid *many* of them by eschewing sweeping solutions to narrow problems.

Well you're not wrong, but I also don't think my proposal qualifies as a sweeping change. And the desire for broader RP options also isn't a narrow problem.

I can see how going to x0.1 HitMod could be seen as extreme - a flat 10x survivability. Perhaps at 0.2 or 0.25 it would be more reasonable. But commensurately I think a reduction in survivability by cutting armor/HP would already balance that out somewhat, by allowing massed light arms to reasonably counter light or even medium flyers for instance. I think that would be more interesting, anyway.

My intention wasn't to suggest a way to create uber-units, it's to provide another tool to flesh out an Order Of Battle.

[Bobcloclimar]

It's an interesting idea.  I would be concerned that balancing the to-hit modifier against mitigators might be difficult - it'd be easy to make them either too useful or too situational. 

I think it would make the most sense to have an HP reduction instead of armor reduction, due to the vulnerability of the flight-granting elements (wings, engines, H2 cells. . . ), and heavily-armored flying units are a common SF trope.  Spitbaling a 75% modifier for HP.  Size-equivalent AV vs vehicle armor/HP auto-kill on hit already, so, there's no real change in vulnerability to same-size weapons.  However, this makes a given weapon system a threat to the next higher vehicle size - e. g.  it almost doubles the effectiveness of medium AV vs 75% Heavy HP.  It also improves the utility of autocannons a bit compared to the equivalent AV weapon. 

For mitigators, I think a bigger GSP burn rate also makes sense.  It might also be interesting to investigate whether modifying the breakthrough behavior (on both ends) makes sense - it would make sense for frontline air units embedded in a formation to be able to rapidly exploit the conditions leading to a breakthrough, but at the same time are more vulnerable to being caught with their pants down during refuel/rearm periods.  Maybe something like 1. 25x breakthrough value and, say, double the cohesion damage (since they'll generally be suffering fewer casualties with the above mods)?

[TurielD (OP)]

I think it would make the most sense to have an HP reduction instead of armor reduction, due to the vulnerability of the flight-granting elements (wings, engines, H2 cells. . . ), and heavily-armored flying units are a common SF trope.  Spitbaling a 75% modifier for HP.  Size-equivalent AV vs vehicle armor/HP auto-kill on hit already, so, there's no real change in vulnerability to same-size weapons.  However, this makes a given weapon system a threat to the next higher vehicle size - e. g.  it almost doubles the effectiveness of medium AV vs 75% Heavy HP.  It also improves the utility of autocannons a bit compared to the equivalent AV weapon. 

That sounds like a good idea to me. I'm not super up on the balance between armor and HP mechanicially, but indeed where the machinery inside is more vulnerable/fragile/likely-to-FUBAR-if-damaged that is more accurately represented by HP than Armor anyway.